ORIGINAL ARTICLE A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal.

March 2019;62(1):17-23

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2590001
UDC: 616.24-002.5(478)

Tuberculosis characteristics and risk factors

in urban compared with rural patients
1
Aliona Tihon, MD, PhD, Associate Professor; 1Ovidiu Tafuni, MD, PhD, Associate Professor;
2
Alina Malic, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor; 3Radu Niguleanu, MD, PhD, Associate Professor;
2
Tatiana Osipov, MD, Assistant Professor; 2Evelina Lesnic, MD, PhD, Associate Professor

1
Department of General Hygiene, 2Department of Pneumophtisiology, 3Department of Morphopathology
Nicolae Testemitsanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy Chisinau, the Republic of Moldova
Corresponding author: evelinalesnic@yahoo.com
Manuscript received January 23, 2019; revised manuscript March 01, 2019

Abstract
Material and methods: A retrospective selective, descriptive study of socioeconomic, epidemiological peculiarities, case-management, diagnosis and
microbiological characteristics of 694 patients with tuberculosis registered in Chisinau in 2016 was performed. Among them 581, had an urban residency
and 112 rural residency.
Results: Residents from rural population and young persons in urban areas were most affected. Socioeconomic vulnerability predominated in both
subpopulations; however, the gravity was more represented in the urban group. Lower level of education and tuberculosis contacts were more dominating
in the rural group. Comorbidities, HIV infection were more frequently identified in the urban group, but destructive forms – in the rural patients. Low
treatment outcomes were more frequently established in the rural group.
Conclusions: Risk factors for tuberculosis in urban subpopulation were: unemployment, lack of health insurance, homelessness, comorbidities, HIV
infection. In rural population prevailed the following risk factors: low school education and tuberculosis contact.
Key words: tuberculosis, risk factors, outcome.

Introduction rural localities compared with urban areas. The incidence

Tuberculosis is one of the 10 causes of death worldwide
and is a leading cause of death in HIV infected people
worldwide [1, 2, 3]. The disease represents a serious public
health problem in the Republic of Moldova (RM), affecting
the most active economic age group of the population.
According to the published data by the Moldovan National
Centre for Management in Health during the period 2013-
2015 it was registered an important decline of the incidence
(with 22.4/100.000) in Chisinau: 2013 – 94.1/100.000,
2014 – 81.7/100.000 and 2015 – 71.7/100.000 population,
prevalence (with 25.4/100.000) 2013 – 125.6/100.000, 2014
– 108.8/100.000 and 2015 – 100.1/100.000 population also
the mortality 2013 – 10.6/100.000 and in 2014 – 6.9/100.000
population. During the same period of time in the RM the
total incidence decreased: in 2013 – 125.6/100.000, 2014
– 108.8/100.000 and 2015 – 100.1/100.000 population, the
prevalence (with 23.3/100.000) in 2013 – 109.7/100.000,
2014 – 97/100.000 and 2015 – 86.4/100.000 population,
also the mortality 2013 – 10.5/100.000 and in 2014 –
8.8/100.000 population. An important difference between
epidemiological indices registered in urban and rural
localities was established. In the rural localities of the RM
the total incidence was by 25% more elevated than in urban
localities: 103.6 /100.000 in 2014 and 90.6/100.000 in 2015
compared with 78.4/100.000 in 2014 and 67.2/100.000 in
2015. A similar trend was identified regarding the incidence
of the new cases, which were more elevated (by 18%) in
of the new cases diminished by 18% from 91.5/100.000 in
2013, 85.4 /100.000 in 2014 and 73.5/100.000 in 2015 in the
rural localities and by 19.7% in an urban population: from
72.3/100.000 in 2013, 62.1/100.000 in 2014 and 52.6/100.000
in 2015. More evidently diminished the prevalence in the
urban localities (by 21%) 115/100.000 in 2013, 99/100.000
in 2014 and 90.4/100.000 population in 2015 compared with
6% in the rural areas: 207.3/100.000 in 2013, 199/100.000 in
2014 and 201.7/100.000 population [4].
In this epidemiological context, it must be exposed
that the territory of the RM extends about 350 km from
North to South and 150 km from West to East and is
distributed in 56.7% of agricultural land, 13.6% of forests,
1.4% of urban localities and 7.6% of rural localities. From
an administrative point of view, the territory of the RM is
organized in 1.682 localities, classified in 5 municipalities,
61 cities, 916 villages and 659 communes (several villages),
integrated in 32 districts and the autonomous territorial unit
Gagauzia. The population of the RM was 3.550.900 people,
including 1.476.100 urban residents and 2.074.800 rural
persons in 2016. The urban population constituted 41.3%
and the rural – 58.7% of the entire population of the RM.
The urban settlements account for 1.4% of the RM territory,
with an average density of 128 inhabitants/km2. The rural
settlements account for 7.6% of the RM territory, with a
total number 1.614 of rural localities. Some of them have
formed a population less than 10.000 inhabitants, with an

17
A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal. March 2019;62(1):17-23
average density of the rural population being 7 inhabitants/
km2 [5].
The regional system of the RM was founded on the basis
of legislative acts: the law of the regional development no.
438-XVI of 28.12.2006, the National Strategy for Regional
Development (decision no 158 of 04.03.2010) and the
regulatory framework that establishes the institutions which
are responsible for the regional development (decision no
127 of 08.02.2008) [6, 7]. The regional development of the
RM is realized according to the regional policy that aims
to perform the territorial cohesion, which means to reduce
the gaps between urban and rural localities, between the
center and the periphery of the RM [7]. Assessing the health
care disparities it was established that the rural households
spent for health more than the urban family groups: 5.9%
vs. 5.4% in 2014, 6.6% vs. 6.5% in 2015 from the total family
income [8]. It is one of the major indices that showed a
reduced accessibility for public health services of the rural
population [9]. The poverty rate in rural areas is 5 times
higher than in urban areas [8]. It was found that 86% of the
poorest people from the RM live in villages [10]. Several
social categories are among the poorest persons: families
which are dependent only on agricultural activities, families
with a lot of children, the elderly, persons with low levels
of education attainment and lack of professional skills [11].
Distributing the population, according to the area of
their habitation (house) it was established that in urban
localities one person possesses 19.4 meters2 and in rural
areas – 23 meters2/person [12]. Even if the area of the rural
household is larger per capita, the quality and endowment
are below the basic needs, which include electricity, natural
gas, heating system, safe water and sewerage, as well the
telecommunication (phone line) [12]. The urban areas have
a better developed infrastructure, but the rural areas have an
inhomogeneous distribution of the basic needs. All exposed
data demonstrated the cause of the discrepancy of the public
health indicators between urban and rural localities. While
analyzing the statistical reports were established multiple
healthcare problems and socially determined morbidities
in rural localities: malnutrition, hipovitaminosis, severe
anemia, tuberculosis, scabies, pediculosis. [14]. Residents of
rural communities are more exposed to polluted water and
to the consumption of dangerous food, due to the infestation
of the land with wastewater and pesticides [13]. Current
researches demonstrated a high level of the rural residents
poisoning by poor management of the pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides and insecticides. Due to the unequal distribution
of the natural gas system, the residents of rural areas of the
RM use fossil fuels (wood, coal and oil derivatives), which
increase the risk of indoor air pollution with toxic gases such
as carbon monoxide and other combustion gases involving
the risk of involuntary poisoning and death [14].
Current political and economic trends are based on
the reduction of the accessibility to the public healthcare
services and increasing of the private sector offers [15].
A significant proportion of people from rural localities
have no compulsory insurance policy, lack of education
18
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
and high risk habits associated with the alcohol and
tobacco consumption and unhealthy diet [16, 17]. The
poor management of the healthcare, human resources, a
big distance between the villages and primary health care
institutions multiplied the barriers for the accessibility of
the rural population to low price healthcare services [9, 14,
18, 19, 20]. Enumerated conditions aggravated by the social,
economical vulnerability contributed to the extension of the
tuberculosis in the rural population.
So, the aim of the study was to assess the tuberculosis
features and risk factors of patients, residents of the urban
sectors and rural localities of Chisinau city.
Objectives were: 1. Assessment of the socioeconomic
and epidemiological risk factors of patients with tuber-
culosis and comparing them according to the urban and
rural residence. 2. Evaluation of the case-management,
diagnosis type, radiological aspects and microbiological
characteristics of tuberculosis patients and comparing them
according to the urban and rural residence. 3. Identification
of the risk factors for tuberculosis, according to the urban
and rural residence.
Results and discussion
According to the data obtained from the monitoring
and follow-up of the case system during the period of 2016
were registered 694 tuberculosis cases among all residents
of Chisinau, which included 581 patients from the urban
sectors and 112 from rural communes: Bacioi, Bic, Braila
(Bacioi), Bubuieci, Budesti, Tohatin, Cruzesti, Ciorescu,
Codru, Colonita, Singera, Ghidighici, Stauceni, Gratiesti,
Truseni, Vadul lui Voda and Vatra [12].
While distributing selected patients, according to the sex
it was established the statistical predominance of men, with
the highest rate in the rural group. So, men were 82 (73.2%)
in the rural group and 392 (67.5%) in the urban group with
a male/female ratio 2.1/1 in the urban group and 2.3/1 in
the rural group. Repartition of the patients into age groups,
according to the WHO recommendation identified that the
largest subgroup in the urban group was between 25 and
34 years old – 136 (23.4%) patients, followed by those who
were between 35 and 44 years old – 125 (21.5%) patients,
between 45 and 54 years old – 115 (19.7%) patients and
between 55 and 64 years old – 100 (17.2%) patients. In a
minor proportion were represented patients younger than
24 years old – 41 (7.1%) cases.
In the rural group predominated patients who were
between 35 and 44 years – 33 (29.4%) patients, followed by
those who were between 45 and 54 years – 23 (20.5%), also
between 55 and 64 years – 22 (19.6%) patients. In a minor
proportion of patients were included young groups, who
were between 25 and 34 years old – 19 (16.9%) and younger
than 24 years – 10 (8.9%) cases. While comparing the groups
was identified the predominance of the young subgroup
of 25-34 years old in the urban group compared with the
rural group: 136 (23.4%) vs. 19 (16.9%) patients, and older
adults in the rural compared with the urban group: between
35 and 44 years old – 33 (29.4%) vs. 125 (21.5%) patients,
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal. March 2019;62(1):17-23

between 45 and 54 years – 23 (20.5%) vs. 115 (19,7%) Table 2

patients and between 55 and 64 years old 22 – (19.6%) vs. Distribution according to the socioeconomic data
100 (17.2%) patients. Distribution of patients in three age
Urban Rural
groups established that young adults who were less than 34 P value
Economic group group
years old predominated in the urban group – 177 (30.4%) vs. Indices
state N=581 N=112
29 (25.9%) patients from the rural group, also older adults, (P%) (P%)
P value
more than 55 years accounted for 164 (28.3%) patients in Economically Employed 137 (23.6) 21 (18.7) >0.05
the urban vs. 27 (24.1%) patients in the rural group. The stable Insured 289 (49.7) 68 (60.8) <0.05
patients who were included in the subgroup between 35 and Economically Disease dis- 53 (9.1) 8 (7.1) >0.05
54 years old were in a similar proportion of 56 (50%) vs. vulnerable abled
240 (41.3%) patients. No statistical threshold was achieved Retired 74 (12.7) 9 (8) >0.05
comparing patients between the age subgroups (tab. 1). Students 12 (2.0) 2 (1.7) >0.05
Table 1 Unemployed 305 (52.4) 72 (64.2) <0.05
Distribution of patients by sex, age Lack of health 292 (50.2) 44 (39.2) <0.05
insurance
and demographic data
Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability.
Sex Urban group Rural group
Indices P value
Age groups N=581 (P%) N=112 (P%) group vs. 29 (25.9%) in the rural group. So, lower level of
Sex Men 392 (67.5) 82 (73.2) >0.05 education statistically predominated in the rural group
Women 189 (32.5) 36 (26.8) >0.05 – 88 (78.5%) vs. 372 (64.1%) patients in the urban group.
Age groups 18-24 years 41 (7.1) 10 (8.9) >0.05 Exposed data are revealed in the table 3.
25-34 years 136 (23.4) 19 (16.9) >0.05 Table 3
35-44 years 125 (21.5) 33 (29.4) >0.05 Distribution according to the last graduate level
45-54 years 115 (19.7) 23 (20.5) >0.05
55-64 years 100 (17.2) 22 (19.6) >0.05 Urban group Rural group P value
Education
+65 years 64 (11.1) 5 (4.5) <0.01 N=581 (P%) N=112 (P%)
Primary & incomplete 143 (24.6) 29 (25.9) >0.05
Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability.
secondary education
Secondary education 229 (39.4) 59 (52.7) <0.01
When distributing patients, according to the economic Secondary technical 162 (27.8) 19 (16.9) <0.01
status, it was established that employed persons, which vocational education
were contributing to the health budget by paying taxes Bachelor studies 47 (8.1) 2 (1.8) <0.001
predominated in the urban group – 137 (23.6%) vs. 21
Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability.
(18.7%) patients and patients with health insurance policy
predominated in the rural group – 68 (60.8%) vs. 289 (49.7%)
The major social characteristics of patients from the
patients in the urban group. Unemployed patients made up
three groups were caused by the vulnerable economic state
the majority of both groups and predominated in the rural
and living in poor conditions. Living under the poverty
group – 72 (64.2%) vs. 305 (52.4%), however, the patients threshold predominated in patients from the rural localities
without health insurance predominated in the urban group – 36 (32.1%) vs. 165 (28.4%) cases from the urban group.
– 292 (50.2%) vs. 44 (39.2%) cases. It is explained by the The extreme poverty, caused by homelessness statistically
fact that Moldovan citizens from rural localities, owners of predominated in the urban group – 130 (22.4%) vs. 17
the agricultural land have health insurance offered by the (15.2%) cases in the rural group. History of migration during
state [23]. Disease disabled patients, retired and students the last year was identified in a similar proportion of 59
predominated in the urban compared with the rural group. (10%) patients from the urban vs. 11 (9.8%) cases. History
The highest proportion among them were retired patients of imprisonment was established in a similar proportion of
– 74 (12.7%) vs. 9 (8%), followed by disease disabled – 53 33 (5.8%) in the urban group vs. 5 (4.5%) in the rural group.
(9.1%) vs. 8 (7.1%) and students –12 (2.0%) vs. 2 (1.7%) Close infectious contact with a member of a family who
cases in urban compared with the rural group (tab. 2). was previously diagnosed statistically predominated in the
Assessment of the educational level, demonstrated rural group – 16 (14.3%) compared with the urban group
that most of the patients from both groups had secondary – 38 (6.5%). It could be explained by the fact that most of
education, however, in the rural group there were 59 (52.7%) the sources of infection in the urban population are not
vs. 229 (39.4%) patients with secondary education in the identified, however, in the rural localities the infectious
urban group. Technical vocational education and bachelor contact is efficiently managed due to a fewer number of
studies predominated in the urban group – 162 (27.8%) vs. population. Comorbid patients statistically predominated
19 (16.9%) in the rural group and respectively 47 (8.1%) in the urban group – 258 (44.4%) vs. 24 (21.4%), more
cases in the urban group vs. 2 (1.8%) in the rural group. evident due to the high prevalence of the HIV infection
Primary and incomplete secondary education had each – 59 (10.1%) in the urban group vs. 3 (2.6%) cases in the
fourth patient in both groups – 143 (24.6%) in the urban rural group. Harmful habits with health consequences such

19
A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal. March 2019;62(1):17-23 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

as chronic alcoholism predominated in the urban group – 10 (8.9%) cases. Pulmonologists detected more frequently
54 (9.2%) vs. 6 (5.4%), as well as the drug use – 10 (1.7%) symptomatic patients from the urban group – 146 (25.1%)
vs. 1 (0.9%) patients in the rural group, as well as mental vs. 21 (18.7%). It is the consequence of the lack of the
disorders – 11 (1.8%) vs. 1 (0.9%) case. Chronic respiratory specialized medical staff, which manages the patients from
and gastrointestinal diseases (including hepatitis) diseases the rural localities. High risk groups screening performed
predominated in the urban group – 37 (6.4%) vs. 6 (5.4%) by pulmonologists detected more frequently patients from
and respectively 51 (8.7%) vs. 5 (4.4%) cases. No other the rural group – 10 (8.9%) vs. 33 (5.6%) cases. Directly
statistical differences were detected among groups regarding for hospitalization into a specialized institution came more
the associated diseases (Table 4). frequently urban residents – 158 (27.1%) vs. 26 (23.2%)
While distributing patients, according to the registered patients from the rural localities. So, it can be deducted that
type of case it was identified that new cases predominated in specialized hospital is more accessible for urban residents
the rural group – 70 (82) vs. 355 (61.1%) patients in the ur- than for rural people. Death cases were more frequently
ban group. Each fourth patient in every group had a relapse detected in tuberculosis people from the rural localities –
– 137 (23.6%) patients in the urban group and 28 (25%) 5 (4%) than from urban districts of Chisinau – 12 (2%).
patients in the rural group. At a similar rate were patients Information is exposed in the table 5.
included in the treatment after a previous “lost to follow- Table 5
up” – 12 (10.7%) patients in the urban vs. 57 (9.8%) patients
Case-management characteristics
in the rural group and after a “treatment failure” – 29 (4.9%)
of tuberculosis patients
patients in the urban vs. 2 (1.8%) patients in the rural group.
Diagnosed and transferred from abroad to the RM were 3 Urban Rural
(0.5%) patients. Data were demonstrated in the table 4. group group P
Health level Detection ways
N=581 N=112 value
Table 4 (P%) (P%)
PHC Detected by GPs 181 (31.1) 45 (40.1) >0.05
Distribution according to the risk groups
symptomatics
Urban Rural Detected by GPs 63 (10.8) 10 (8.9) >0.05
group group P screening of HRG
Category Risks factors
N=581 N=112 value Ambulatory Detected by SP 146 (25.1) 21 (18.7) >0.05
(P%) (P%) specialized symptomatics
Socioeco- Poverty 165 (28.4) 36 (32.1) >0.05 level Detected by SP 33 (5.6) 10 (8.9) >0.05
nomic Homelessness 130 (22.4) 17 (15.2) <0.05 screening of HRG
Migration 59 (10) 11 (9.8) >0.05 Hospital level Direct addressing 158 (27.1) 26 (23.2) >0.05
History of detention 33 (5.8) 5 (4.5) >0.05
Biological Close contact 38 (6.5) 16 (14.3) <0.05 Others Postmortem 12 (2) 5 (4) >0.05
Associated diseases 258 (44.4) 24 (21.4) <0.001 Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability;
HIV-infection 59 (10.1) 3 (2.6) <0.001 GP-general practitioner, SP-specialist, HRG-high risk group.
Diabetes 10 (1.7) 1 (0.9) >0.05
Chronic alcoholism 54 (9.2) 6 (5.4) >0.05
Identifying the clinical, radiological forms of pulmonary
CRD 37 (6.4) 6 (5.4) >0.05
tuberculosis it was established that pulmonary tuberculo-
GID 51 (8.7) 5 (4.4) >0.05
sis was diagnosed in a similar proportion in both groups –
Mental disorders 11 (1.8) 1 (0,9) >0.05
546 (93.9%) vs 106 (94.6%) patients, as to extrapulmonary
(excluding IVDU)
forms of tuberculosis – 31 (5.4%) vs. 6 (5.4%) patients.
Neoplasm 7 (1.2) 0 >0.05
Generalized tuberculosis was established only in the urban
Renal diseases 5 (0.8) 1 (0.9) >0.05
group – 4 (0.6%) patients. Pulmonary infiltrative tuberculo-
Immune suppressive 3 (0.5) 0 >0.05
sis was identified in a similar proportion in both groups –
treatment
495 (85.2%) in the urban group vs. 97 (91.6%) patients in
Drug users 10 (1.7) 1 (0.9) >0.05
the rural group. Disseminated pulmonary tuberculosis was
Others 12 (2.0) 0 >0.05
established more frequently in the rural group – 5 (4.7%) vs
Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability; 18 (3.3%) patients from the urban group. Destructive forms
NA-non available, CRD-chronic respiratory diseases, GID-gastrointestinal
diseases.
of pulmonary tuberculosis were identified in a higher pro-
portion in both groups, however, the destructive process
in both lungs was statistically more frequently identified in
Studying case-management, it was identified that the
the rural group – 36 (32.1%) vs. 97 (16.9%) patients (tab. 6).
general medical staff was involved in the detection of most
When assessing the laboratory features of the enrolled
of the patients from the both groups and more perceptibly
pulmonary tuberculosis patients, it was identified that one
in the rural group – 45 (40.1%) vs 181 (31.1%) patients
third of the entire sample was microscopic positive for acid-
from the urban group. Screening of the people with high
fast-bacilli, 162 (27.8%) patients in the urban vs. 38 (33.9%)
risk performed by the general practitioners detected more
patients in the rural group. A similar proportion of pa-
frequently patients from the urban group – 63 (10.8%) vs.
tients was identified to have positive bacteriological results

20
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal. March 2019;62(1):17-23

Table 6
Microbiological features of tuberculosis patients
Urban group Rural group
Index Radiological features P value
N=581 (P%) N=112 (P%)
Clinical forms of TB Pulmonary TB 546 (93.9) 106 (94.6) >0.05
Extrapulmonary 31 (5.4) 6 (5.4) >0.05
Generalized 4 (0.6) 0 >0.05
Clinical forms PIT 495 (85.2) 97 (91.6) >0.05
of pulmonary TB PDT 18 (3.3) 5 (4.7) >0.05
FCVT 33 (6.1) 4 (3.7) >0.05
Localization of destruction One lung 171 (29.4) 38 (33.9) >0.05
Both lungs 97 (16.9) 36 (32.1) <0.001
Microbiological features AFB positive 162 (27.8) 38 (33.9) >0.05
MBT culture positive 155 (26.7) 35 (31.2) >0.05
GeneXpert MTB positive 227 (39.1) 51 (45.4) >0.05
GeneXpert MTB/Rif sensible 142 (24.4) 17 (15.2) <0.05
GeneXpert MTB/Rif resistent 85 (14.6) 34 (30.4) <0.01
MBT culture positive AFB positive 97 (16.6) 26 (23.2) >0.05
MBT culture positive AFB positive GeneXpert positive 81 (13.9) 23 (20.5) >0.05
MDR-TB 51 (8.8) 13 (11.6) >0.05
Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability; PIT-pulmonary infiltrative tuberculosis, PDT-pulmonary disseminated tuberculosis,
FCVT-fibro-cavernous tuberculosis. Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability.

at cultivation on solid Lowenstein-Jensen or liquid MGIT The standard treatment for drug susceptible tuberculosis
BACTEC media: 155 (26.7%) patients in the urban vs. 35 was used for the treatment of a similar proportion of
(31.2%) patients in the rural group. The molecular genetic patients from both groups: 530 (91.2%) patients from the
assay was performed in all cases, but positive results were urban group and respectively 99 (88.4%) patients from
obtained more frequently in the rural group – 51 (45.4%) vs. the rural group. Every third patient from the urban group
227 (39.1%) patients in the urban due to a high proportion and every fifth patient from the rural group was treated as
of cases with destructive forms of tuberculosis. Sensitive to previously treated cases – 226 (38.9%) patients from the
rifampicin were more frequently identified patients from the urban group and 60 (37.5%) patients from the rural group.
rural group – 142 (24.4%) vs. 17 (15.2%), however, resistant Even the rate of MDR-TB was in average similar in both
to rifampicin have been more frequent cases in the rural groups, only a minor proportion of patients from both
group – 34 (30.4%) vs. 85 (14.6%) cases in the urban group. groups was treated as drug-resistant patients: 51 (8.8%)
Microscopically positive for AFB and cultivation on the patients from the urban group and 13 (11.6%) patients
conventional media proved to be Mycobacterium tuberculo- from the rural group. It is important to emphasize that the
sis (MTB) more frequently in the rural group – 26 (23.2%) standard treatment for MDR-TB could be started only if the
vs. 97 (16.6%) in the urban group, as well microscopic posi- therapeutic compliance of the patient is established and the
tive for AFB, culture positive for MTB and GeneXpert MTB clinical tolerance is acceptable (tab. 7).
Rif positive assay were 23 (20.5%) patients from rural group
Table 7
vs. 81 (13.9%) patients from the urban group.
The standard treatment for new drug-susceptible tuber- Types of the cases according to the history
culosis in the RM has been used since 2000, lasts 6 months of the anti-tuberculosis treatment
and consists of two phases with four first-line drugs: isoniazid Case type Outcome Urban Rural P
(H), rifampicin (R), ethambutol (E) and pyrazinamide (Z) group group value
in the intensive phase and two first-line drugs: isoniazid N=581 N=112
and rifampicin in the continuation phase. For previously (P%) (P%)
treated cases was used a regimen which lasts 8 months: 3 Never treated New case 355 (61.1) 70 (62.5) >0.05
months with H, R, E, Z and streptomycin and 5 months with before
H, R and E. Patients with rifampicin-resistance or MDR-TB Previously Relapse 137 (23.6) 28 (25) >0.05
were treated with second-line drugs for 18 months or more treated Recovered after 57 (9.8) 12 (10.7) >0.05
divided in two phases. The regimen composition during default
the intensive phase lasts 6 months and includes kanamycin Recovered after 29 (4.9) 2 (1.8) <0.05
(Km) or capreomycin (Cm), levofloxacin (Lfx), para-amino failure
salicylic acid (PAS), ethionamide (Eto), cycloserine (Cs) Types of the First-line anti-TB 530 (91.2) 99 (88.4) >0.05
and pyrazinamide (Z) and for continuation phases during drugs drugs
12-18 months – Lfx, PAS, Etho, Cs and Z. Second-line anti-TB 51 (8.8) 13 (11.6) >0.05
drugs

21
A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal. March 2019;62(1):17-23 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

All the patients were managed and treated with the stan- as a hallmark of the late detection of tuberculosis process.
dard treatment for tuberculosis. First-line anti-tuberculosis When leveling the risk factors it was established that more
drugs were used in 531 (91.4%) patients from urban group relevant was the tuberculosis contact followed by the low
vs. 13 (11.7%) patients from the rural group. Successfully level of education (tab. 9).
treated were more frequently patients in the rural group – The relation between tuberculosis indices and demo-
80 (71.4%) vs. 373 (64.2%) patients in the urban group. The graphic particularities was widely studied [24, 25, 26, 27, 11,
low therapeutic outcome was more frequently established in 28]. Globally, the epidemics of tuberculosis is much higher
the urban group, such as “lost to follow-up” – 45 (7.7%) vs. in urban areas than in rural localitites, because almost one
5 (4.5%) cases in the rural group, died – 69 (11.9%) vs. 10 half of the world’s population lives in cities [29, 25, 26]. Our
(8.9%) patients in the rural group. Still continuing the treat- research identified high indices of tuberculosis in the ru-
ment was almost each tenth patient in both groups (tab. 8). ral subpopulation than in urban areas. It can be explained
by the complexity of risk factors, which reflects the barri-
Table 8 ers for accessing the healthcare services of the rural popula-
Treatment outcome of tuberculosis patients tion [30, 31, 32]. Several studies identified a poor quality of
healthcare in private system which manages patients with
Outcome Urban group Rural group P value
tuberculosis [33, 26, 34]. In the RM the specialized institu-
N=581 (P%) N=112 (P%)
tions offer a standard approach, which corresponds to the
Treatment success 373 (64.2) 80 (71.4) >0.05
international recommendations and national regulations
Treatment failure 9 (1.5) 0 >0.05
[35, 21, 36]. The uncontrolled urbanisation is associated
Lost to follow-up 45 (7.7) 5 (4.5) >0.05 with extension of drug resistance and poor treatment out-
Death 69 (11.9) 10 (8.9) >0.05 come [37, 38, 39]. Our research established more increased
Still continuing 63 (10.8) 10 (8.9) >0.05 rate of the drug resistance in the rural population. It can be
explained by a deeper investigation of tuberculosis contacts
Diagnosed excluded 22 (3.8) 6 (5.4) >0.05
in the rural areas. The uncontrolled urbanization is associa-
Note: Applied statistical test: paired simple T-test, P – probability. ted with lack of healthcare service at low price and expan-
sion of the private sector [26, 27]. Our research established
An important research outcome represents the odds that the major proportion of patients was detected by public
ratio (OR) and the attributable risk (AR), which are indices general practitioners and every fifth patient came directly to
for identifying the priority interventions in the frame of the hospital. No similar studies were conducted in the RM.
high risk groups from every type of the subpopulation Urbanization is associated with overcrowding, low level of
[22]. The values were calculated represented only for risk sanitation and low socioeconomic state [40, 32, 41]. Our re-
factors which predominated and exposed a statistical search identified also an important proportion of patients
difference between the groups. It was established that the from both subpopulations, which were unemployed, home-
risk factors for tuberculosis in urban patients were linked less and without health insurance, however, their amount
with the sociovulnerability: unemployment, associated lack was more prevalent in the urban group which constituted
of health insurance, homelessness or lack of the residence risk factors.
visa, comorbidities and the immune suppressive condition
– HIV infection. Attributable risk revealed the hierarchy of Conclusions
risks in urban population: HIV infection, comorbidities, Residents from the rural localities were more affected by
homelessness, lack of health insurance and unemployment. tuberculosis compared with the urban population.
In rural population the risk factors for tuberculosis were The age for acquiring tuberculosis was younger in urban
low level of the school education and tuberculosis contact. population than in that from rural areas.
Related to this was identified lung destruction in both lungs, Socioeconomic vulnerability was extended in all patients
Table 9
with tuberculosis; however, the gravity was more evident in
patients from the urban districts of Chisinau.
Risk factors for tuberculosis Low level of education predominated in the patients
AR from rural localities.
Risk factors OR
(%) Close contact with a sick patient predominated in the
Social Unemployment 1.63 (1,07-2,48) 18 patients with tuberculosis from rural localities, which
economical Lack of insurance 1.56 (1,03-2,35) 18 contributed to a higher rate of MDR-TB.
features Homelessness 1.61(0,928-2,794) 31 Associated diseases predominated in the urban group,
Low secondary education 2.06 (1,27-3,35) 17 more expressed was HIV infection.
Epidemio- Close contact 2.32 (1,27-4,44) 57 Risk factors for tuberculosis in urban population were:
logical and Associated diseases 2.9 (1,81-4,73) 52 unemployment and associated lack of health insurance,
comorbidties HIV-infection 4.1 (1,26-13,4) 80 patient’s homeless state, comorbidities and the immune
Disease Both lungs involvement 2.36 (1,5-3,71) 52 suppressive condition – HIV infection. Risk factors for the
related rural population were tuberculosis contact and low level of
Note: OR – odds ratio; AR – attributable risk. the education.

22
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
References
1. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis control 2011. Epide-
miology, strategy, finances. Geneva: WHO; 2011. 258 p.
2. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2015. Geneva:
WHO; 2015. 192 p.
3. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2017. Geneva:
WHO; 2017. 249 p.
4. Centrul Naţional de Management în Sănătate al Republicii Moldova
[National Center for Health Management of the Republic of Moldova].
Indicatori preliminari în format prescurtat privind sănătatea populaţiei
şi activitatea instituţiilor medico-sanitare pe anii 2014-2015 [Preliminary
indicators on population health and on healthcare institutions activity
for 2014-2015]. Chisinau: The Center; 2016. 216 p. Romanian.
5. Biroul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii Moldova [National Bureau of
Statistics of the Republic of Moldova]. Raport demografic 2017 [Demo-
graphic report 2017].
6. Guvernul Republicii Moldova [Government of the Republic of Mol-
dova]. Hotărârea nr. 685 din 4.09.2013 privind Strategia Naţională de
Dezvoltare Regională pentru anii 2013-2015 [Decision no. 685 of 2013
September 4, on the National Strategy for Regional Development for
the years 2013-2015]. Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Moldova. 2013
Sep 13;(198-204):art. no. 792. Romanian.
7. Guvernul Republicii Moldova [Government of the Republic of Mol-
dova]. Legea nr. 438 din 28.12.2006 cu privire la dezvoltarea regională
în Republica Moldova [Law no. 438 of 28 December 2006 on regional
development in the Republic of Moldova]. Monitorul Oficial al Republicii
Moldova. 2007 Feb 16;(21-24):art. no. 68. Romanian.
8. Pintea D, Gumene I. Analiza cheltuielilor destinate ocrotirii sănătăţii
în Republica Moldova [Analysis of expenditures for health care in the
Republic of Moldova]. Chisinau; 2016. 26 p. Romanian.
9. Berdaga V, Stefanet S, Bivol O. Access of the population of the Republic
of Moldova to health services. Chisinau: Gunivas; 2010.
10. Government of the Republic of Moldova, UN Agencies in Moldova. The
third Report on Millenium Development Goals. Republic of Moldova.
Chisinau, 2013. 90 p.
11. World Health Organization. Commission on Social Determinants of
Health. Action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO;
2005. 50 p.
12. Biroul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii Moldova [National Bureau
of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova]. Anuarul statistic al Republicii
Moldova, 2017 = Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Moldova, 2017.
Chisinau: The Bureau; 2017. 486 p.
13. Centrul Naţional de Management în Sănătate [National Center for Health
Management of the Republic of Moldova]. Sănătatea publică în Moldova,
2016: Raport [Public health in Moldova, 2016: Report]. Chisinau: The
Center; 2016. Romanian.
14. National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova. Results of the
study of population health status and access to health services in the
Republic of Moldova. Chisinau; 2016.
15. Ministerul Sănătăţii al Republicii Moldova [Ministry of Health of the
Republic of Moldova]. Accelerarea reformelor: abordarea necesitatilor
din domeniul sanatatii prin politici investitionale: Raport [Accelerating
reforms: addressing the needs of the health area through investment
policies: Report]. Chisinau; 2016. Romanian.
16. Bivol S, Vladicescu N; [Ministry of Health of the Republic of Moldova].
Vulnerabilitatea femeilor din Republica Moldova la HIV si SIDA: 2010
= Women’s vulnerability to HIV and AIDS in the Republic of Moldova:
2010. Chisinau: Elan Poligraf; 2010. 138 p.
17. Lesnic E, Ustian A, Niguleanu A, Malic A, Paladi C. Social features of
patients with pulmonary tueberculosis. [Tuberculosis, Lung Diseases,
HIV Infection] (Kiev). 2016;25(2):36-40.
18. Centrul Naţional de Management în Sănătate al Republicii Moldova
[National Center for Health Management of the Republic of Moldova].
Potenţialul uman din sistemul sănătăţii implicat în acordarea asistenţei
medicale în ftiziopneumologie [The human potential of the healthcare
system involved in the medical assistance in phthisiopulmonology].
Chisinau: The Center; 2011. Romanian.
19. Ciocanu M. Expertiza calitatii serviciilor spitaliceşti prestate persoanelor
asigurate [Quality assessment of hospital services provided to insured
persons]. Curierul Medical (Chisinau). 2007;(5):56-60.
20. Galan A. Expertiza Strategiei “Dezvoltarea resurselor umane pentru
sănătate” şi a Planului de Acţiuni în Republica Moldova: Raport final
23
A. Tihon et al. Moldovan Medical Journal. March 2019;62(1):17-23
[Assessment of the strategy paper “Development of Human Resources
for Health” and of the Action Plan in the Republic of Moldova: Final
report]. Chisinau; 2011. 34 p. Romanian.
21. Domente L, Alexandru S, Iavorschi C, et al.; [Ministry of Health of the
Republic of Moldova]. Tuberculoza la adult: Protocol clinic naţional
[Tuberculosis in adults  : National clinical protocol]. Chisinau: The
Ministry; 2015, 140 p. (PCN-123). Romanian.
22. Spinei L, Lozan O, Badan V. Biostatistica [Biostatistics]. Chişinău; 2009.
186 p. Romanian.
23. Guvernul Republicii Moldova [Government of the Republic of Moldova].
Legea nr. 1585 din 27.02.1998 cu privire la asigurarea obligatorie de
asistenţă medicală 30.04.1998 [Law no. 1585 of 27 February 1998 on
compulsory health insurance]. Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Moldova.
1998 Apr 30;(38-39): art. no. 280. Romanian.
24. Kulzhabaeva A, Nabirova D, et al. Linkage between diagnosis and treat-
ment of smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis in urban and rural areas
in Kyrgyzstan. Public Health Panorama. 2016;2(1):104-109.
25. Prasad A, Ross A, et al. A world of cities and the end of TB. Trans R Soc
Trop Med Hyg. 2016;110:151-152. doi:10.1093/trstmh/trw004.
26. Rangan S, Gupte H, et al. Tackling tuberculosis in urban areas: experi-
ences from Mumbai city. Health Administrator. 2006;15(1):72-79.
27. Sumaiya Rahman, Shohel Ahmed. To assess the tuberculosis situation
in urban and rural areas of Bangladesh with special emphasis on the
facility of treatment scenarios. Pub Health Res. 2017;7(3):73-77.
28. Shen X, Xia Z, et al. Tuberculosis in an urban area in China: dif-
ferences between urban migrants and local residents. PLoS ONE.
2012;7(11):e51133. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051133.
29. Paquette K, Cheng MP, Kadatz MJ, et al. Chest radiography for active
tuberculosis case finding in the homeless  : a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2014;18(10):1231-6.
30. Lesnic E. The assessment of different tuberculosis-related features in
Moldova regions. Moldovan Medical Journal. 2017;60(3):3-10.
31. Lesnic E, Todorico L, Niguleanu A, et al. The socio-economic risk factors
of tuberculosis in condition of a high migration in trans-border region.
[Bukovinian Medical Herald] (Chernivtsy). 2016;20(4):109-111.
32. Tafuni O, Lesnic E. Condiţiile de trai ale bolnavilor de tuberculoză din
municipiul Chişinău în perioada rece a anului [The living conditions
of patients with tuberculosis in the city of Chişinău in the cold period
of the year]. Sănătate publică, Economie şi Management în Medicină
(Chisinau). 2016;(3(67)):138-141.
33. Ibiene Tobin-West Ch, Isodje Anastasia. Quality and rural-urban
comparison of tuberculosis care in Rivers State, Nigeria. Pan Afr Med
J. 2016;24:60. doi:10.11604/pamj.2016.24.60.8497.
34. Dye C, Lönnroth K, Jaramillo E, Williams BG, Raviglione M. Trends
in tuberculosis incidence and their determinants in 134 countries. Bull
World Health Organ. 2009 Sep;87(9):683-91.
35. Guvernul Republicii Moldova [Government of the Republic of Mol-
dova]. Hotărârea nr.1171 din 21.12.2010 privind aprobarea Programului
naţional de control a tuberculozei pentru anii 2011-2015 [Decision no.
1171 of 2010 December 21, on approving the National Tuberculosis Con-
trol Program for the years 2011-2015]. Monitorul Oficial al Republicii
Moldova. 2010 Dec 31;(259-263):art. no. 1316. Romanian.
36. World Health Organization. Treatment of tuberculosis: guidelines.
Geneva: WHO; 2014. 420 p.
37. Abubakar I, Crofts J, et al. Investigating urban-rural disparities in tu-
berculosis treatment outcome in England and Wales. Epidemiol Infect.
2008;136(1):122-127.
38. Almeida D, Rodrigues C, Udwadia Z, et al. Incidence of multidrug-
resistant tuberculosis in urban and rural India and implications for
prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(12):e152-e154. doi: 10.1086/374931.
39. Centrul Naţional de Management în Sănătate al Republicii Moldova
[National Center for Health Management of the Republic of Moldova].
Evaluarea costului catastrofal asociat tuberculozei drogrezistente în
gospodăriile din Republica Moldova [Assessment of catastrophic cost
associated with multidrug resistant tuberculosis in the Republic of
Moldova]. Chişinău; 2017. Romanian.
40. Lobo MA, Paiva Neto HC, Bello LA. Spatial distribution of pulmonary
tuberculosis in urban areas: a case from Belém, Brazil. Acta Biomedica
Brasiliensia. 2016;7(2):1-14.
41. World Health Organization. The global plan to stop TB 2011-2015:
transforming the fight towards elimination of tuberculosis. Geneva:
WHO; 2010. 96 p.